Gerry Carroll
West Belfast · People Before Profit Alliance · Northern Ireland
“Yesterday morning, as others did, I stood alongside our resident doctors as they commenced a 24-hour period of industrial action. We often praise our healthcare workers in the House and more generally, saying things such as that they are invaluable and that we wish them well.”
“If we have learnt anything from the political events of the past week, it is that powerful people — powerful men, in particular — and institutions should always be held to maximum account when it comes to abuse, neglect and victims, and that victims and survivors should be believed and supported on every occasion.”
“Agency spend has, again, gone through the roof and is sky-high; locum spend has gone up and continues to go up — it has gone up by in the region of £0·5 billion over the past few years; and, almost every single year out of the past five to 10 years, hundreds of millions of pounds of public money have been pumped into the for-profit privat…”
“With bills increasing month-on-month and year-on-year, that is true, and those workers need a proper settlement that meets their needs and the ever-increasing cost of living. One striking doctor put it to me starkly yesterday. They said that they left Scotland and took a more senior position in the health sector in Belfast.”
“I commend Stephen and his colleagues in the Bill Office and the Executive Office officials, who worked closely with me to try to support, amend or help along my amendments — whatever way you want to look at it. I also want to commend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone who spoke out during the last few stages.”
“I commend people for speaking out on the issue, especially Sharon Burke. I think that she might be in the Gallery. She has been emailing Members on that issue.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,137 lines we hold for Gerry Carroll, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 66 of 83.
“The Minister has taken some belated action to push back the schools' opening date, but the reality is that it is likely to be nowhere near enough in a situation where the Executive have said that people should work at home if they can and where all but essential services are closed until the end of January at the earliest.”
“He sneered at my suggestion many months ago that pupils should wear masks on public transport but has, eventually, acceded to that request. In England, we have seen that year 8 pupils are the second-highest infected group, and the rate is rising there.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would certainly support that suggestion. <BR /> <BR />We know the importance of education, but, I repeat, we are dealing with a pandemic that is ripping through our communities. Of course the classroom is an important part of education in normal times but it should not be the only method of education. Ultimately, the Minister's approach is to defend a system that is already failing so many people in our society. It is quite ironic that although the Minister and his party often talk about working-class Protestants being failed by the education system, they are willing to defend the system, even in the middle of a pandemic. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has been operating on the basis that schoolchildren are not at risk from the virus.”
“Again, he acts only after a Tory Minister belatedly acts, refusing to listen to the concerns of those who know the day-to-day reality of working in education and those who know the reality of the virus and what it represents. What message does it send to education workers that the Minister waited until the final day of the year, only a few days before schools were due to reopen, to announce this backtracking? Waiting until the eleventh hour again, when I and many others predicted that a situation would likely occur. No bland statements about people needing access to education will suffice here. We know the importance of education, but, I repeat, we are dealing with a pandemic.”
“Throughout the pandemic, the Minister has essentially ignored and sidelined those voices. The Minister's latest U-turn has been forced in part by pressure from the unions that represent teachers and education workers, and I thank them for their work. I say to them directly that if the Minister continues to put you and your pupils at risk, I will wholeheartedly support you if you take action, including walking out or refusing to go into unsafe working conditions. I hope that other Members will stand by you as well. <BR /> <BR />I have said repeatedly that the Executive have, too often, followed the Tory approach to tackling the crisis. The Education Minister has really turned that into a virtue and certainly wins the award for being an ardent Tory follower.”
“Too many to count. More U-turns than Mickey Marley's roundabout. The Minister is not fit for the job. These are people's lives that we are talking about. We are talking about protecting people in our schools from a deadly virus and from a new variant of it, which is spreading through our communities at a much quicker rate. <BR /> <BR />The motion rightly references:”
“It is utterly disgraceful that the Education Minister dug his heels in for so long, stubbornly refusing to listen to the Health Minister, the CMO, the Chief Scientific Adviser, SAGE and many other people, to keep schools running as normal in the middle of a pandemic that is sweeping through our communities and taking the lives of workers, including education workers. True to form — true to his tenure as Education Minister this year — he has performed another U-turn, which has caused increased anxiety for those in education. <BR /> <BR />The reality is that this Minister — indeed, this House — knew that cases had risen at an exponential rate in the past few weeks, and while the Executive's handling of the pandemic has been a disaster, Mr Weir certainly tops the class for incompetence, for sure. How many U-turns has he performed this year?”
“— our immediate and primary aim should be to stand up for working-class people on these islands.”
“I will bring my comments to a conclusion. I support amendment No 4. I certainly do not agree with everything in the amendment in the names of Matthew O'Toole and Nichola Mallon, and I am on record detailing why. I am no friend of the neoliberal heart of the EU, but this amendment is the only opportunity today for us to send a message to Boris Johnson and Westminster that we have no truck with this deal, as other devolved institutions have had the opportunity to do so. Therefore, I critically support amendment No 4, and, in the aftermath of a Tory Brexit —”
“Mr Speaker, I am just mentioning that my amendment was not selected. I was not casting judgement on you.”
“I submitted an amendment to today's motion to oppose outright Boris Johnson's deal, to call for a border poll and to endorse cross-border action on a range of political issues. However, it appears that only amendments tabled by the Executive parties were deemed to be acceptable.”
“Historically, the border has divided people on this island, holding back progress and helping to bolster two conservative, right-wing states, North and South. For these reasons, we have always opposed a border, and, today, we repeat our call for a border poll.”
“I believe that progressives and radicals in Ireland should use the current context of crisis and instability in British capitalism to rid ourselves of the Tories once and for all. <BR /> <BR />We should recognise moves that have been made to prevent a hardening of the border in Ireland, but that should be only the beginning.”
“No, thanks. <BR /> <BR /> — will restrict the free movement of people and begin the process of a racist, points-based immigration system. I strongly reiterate my opposition to that, again, as we sit on the precipice of a likely deal in Westminster. <BR /> <BR />The entire Brexit process has exacerbated the deep crisis at the heart of the British state — a reactionary state based on militarism, austerity and inequality; a state that continues to deny justice to the victims of its actions on this island and, indeed, its own island, particularly the people of Grenfell Tower; a state whose rotten record of austerity over the past decade is enough to illustrate the nefarious role of Britain in Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Tory vision of exiting the EU was a fantasy to bolster the British Empire. They were happy to use racism in order to advance it and even happier to throw their would-be allies in the DUP under the bus while they were at it. The new immigration system at the heart of the Tories' post-Brexit plans, elements of which were put forward in this House just a few weeks ago —”
“It may give us cause to be troubled in the near future. We in this Assembly should use this opportunity to collectively reject the deal. <BR /> <BR />As usual, Boris Johnson approached the announcement of a trade deal on Christmas Eve with much bluff and bluster, presenting it as a good deal, but the truth is far from that. No gains will be made for working-class people under this Tory Brexit, and it is not the ringing commitment to a fairer and more equal society that we so desperately need. The details of many areas of the deal remain unclear as the vote swiftly approaches, and parts are yet to be fully negotiated and settled. Yet the Tories' commitment to pay cuts and further austerity measures speaks volumes about what we can expect in the coming year.”
“In the past 48 hours, Britain has had more new cases of COVID-19 than France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and the South of Ireland combined. It has been horrific to watch as cases have multiplied locally and deaths have increased yet again. Obviously, our thoughts are with everyone affected by it. It is astounding that people are coping at all, our healthcare staff included. It is a winter like no other and a year like no other for far too many unfortunate people. <BR /> <BR />The prospect of a no-deal Brexit during this pandemic was clearly deeply troubling for many. No doubt many breathed a sigh of relief in recent days. However, the trade deal being debated currently in Westminster, by a Government made up of posh, rich, Tory MPs, is not a good deal for working-class people here in Ireland or across the water.”
“Mr Speaker, I will be breaking from some convention in this debate by not quoting Winston Churchill. He was an imperialist butcher who believed that the British Empire was superior to people here and in every country that the British Empire colonised across the world. <BR /> <BR />Boris Johnson's reactionary and calamitous Tory Government is presiding over the worst crisis in living memory for working-class people collectively across these islands. Their disastrous handling of Brexit is one element of it, but, of course, Brexit dangerously intersects with the COVID health crisis, economic ruin, job losses and a deep social crisis that Britain and Ireland are now deeply in the throes of.”
“Therefore, with respect, I will support, as I stated, the amendments guaranteeing that commencement is written into the Bill. I support all the amendments in this group, apart from amendment No 3.”
“I do not mean any slight on the Minister or the Department, but it is worth saying that any cursory reading of the Committee minutes on the subject of the Bill would paint a picture of Committee members being told that certain things were not possible in the Bill. However, those things are now written into the Bill and have been endorsed by the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have a chance here today to support women and children who are victims of domestic abuse by properly funding access to justice. Concerns about the legal aid budget will be dwarfed by the impact on many other Departments' budgets if we do not tackle the issues now. It is worth emphasising that my party — I am sure that others do also — stands with groups such as Women's Aid on the issue, which is to say that provision should be as wide-ranging as possible. Indeed, we share their fears that some elements of the Bill will not be commenced. Therefore, I will support Committee amendment No 13. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has appealed to Members to trust the Department to ensure that the Bill is commenced and, if we cannot, to support the law.”
“It is a fair question. I do not have a prescriptive proposal. Rachel Woods made some suggestions, and a lot of the responsibility for that falls to the Minister. Provision needs to be put in place — or as much as is possible — to ensure that that does not happen. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has, correctly, endorsed amendments that would guarantee regular reporting to make sure that the Bill does what it is intended to do. It would allow her and her Department to make adjustments to provisions where necessary. Here today, at the beginning of making this law, we should ensure that we are making every support and aid available to victims. If funding issues are identified, as the Minister suggests, by way of reporting, there should be adequate opportunity to address and correct them.”
“For me, it echoes the mantra that, in order to prevent benefit fraud, we should stop benefit provision for many people. Again, that is a blunt and restrictive response to making sure that victims of domestic abuse have access to aid whenever they need it.”
“The cost to society of not breaking down barriers for victims to report domestic abuse and to seek support and escape from it is, obviously, massive. Consequently, it takes more investment to overcome because services that support those women need additional funding down the line. The Assembly should be focused wholeheartedly on providing whatever support it can to those who need it now. If it saves money down the line that is all the better. <BR /> <BR />I will also support amendment No 6. The arguments for it have been well made by Rachel Woods already, and I will not take up time to repeat many of them. However, I will say that the idea that we should not support the amendment because it might allow access to aid for those who would wrongfully claim it is not one that I could go along with.”
“In my view, that would be an unnecessarily blunt and restrictive approach. Claims that support already exists in the higher court were, helpfully, challenged earlier today by Rachel Woods when she enquired as to how many times that support had been accessed. I believe that the answer was none. Therefore, claims that legal aid that can be accessed for the higher courts would, essentially, double the budget for such support were also dashed because, obviously, you cannot double none. <BR /> <BR />That is why I will be supporting Rachel Woods and Sinéad Bradley's amendment No 5 to widen the scope of legal aid provision. We do not — and nobody should — support a hierarchy of victims that arbitrarily divides people, denying some of them access to vital funding and support.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. They were not my comments; I am putting on record my views on them. The same arguments around affordability creep in to justify limiting legal aid to the lower courts.”
“I thank the Minister for her clarification, but it was an unhelpful comment last week. If the scale of domestic violence is such that it costs anything like £650 million in legal aid, the first response should not be, "The money isn't there"; it should be, "This is a massive issue in our society. Let's put the investment in to tackling it and ensuring that people have the support to do that".”
“I was shocked last week to hear the Minister referring to the potential costs as "RHI on steroids". I have not been provided with a figure to back up such a claim. I believe that the figures that were provided by the Minister earlier today were nothing close to those concerning RHI.”
“My comments will be brief. For the benefit of the House, I will not criticise, undermine or call into question the motivation of the Minister, even though I disagree with some of the points and the amendments that she is advocating. It is my duty, as an MLA who is not in the Executive, to criticise all legislation, including the Bill that is before us. <BR /> <BR />I speak in favour of all amendments in group 1 except for amendment No 3 from the Minister. I am very glad that amendments have been submitted by private Members that would strip away the more restrictive elements of the Minister's proposed provisions for legal aid. I have been troubled, as others have been, by the language that has been used to justify the limitations. They seem to focus primarily on affordability.”
“Does the Member agree that, if her amendments do not pass, in reality, there will be a piece of legislation that says that you can get justice if you can afford it?”
“for pupils. <BR /> <BR />Can the Minister explain how it is fair or, indeed, healthy that post-primary exams will go ahead in the new year despite pupils being in the middle of a health pandemic, with many thousands having so much time off school and missing so much teaching, not to mention the serious concerns that exist around children's safety that his Department has still not addressed?”
“The Minister ended his statement by saying:”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he know when the House will discuss the latest regulations that are in place? If cases go up early in the new year, will he and his Department be willing to reconvene the Assembly to discuss that? Whilst people deserve a break, the worst possible thing would be for this place to be closed if there was a massive spike in cases. Has the Minister considered or taken a view on that?”
“By all accounts, another dangerous surge seems to be on the way. I hope that that is not the case.”
“It is not utopia. I will give the Member two words: New Zealand. That example could have been followed, but it was not. He claims to be against the strategy of going in and out of lockdown but is pursuing and defending the strategy, which, by definition, means going in and out of lockdown. He fails to grasp the point. <BR /> <BR />People have been forced to act because the Executive have failed to act. Principals and teachers, in the absence of any real action at all from the Education Minister — much like earlier this year — have been forced to close schools in order to protect pupils and staff. While it may be fashionable or easy to blame everyone else, the Executive and their approach cannot be let off the hook, especially as we see what will happen over the next few weeks.”
“I suggest that there are not many Einsteins currently in the Stormont Executive. In the absence of any lead from the Executive, people have again been forced to act themselves, including some bar owners who are able to close over the Christmas period or are doing so for health and safety reasons.”
“Even when the circuit breaker was in place, as I said, the infection rate was shooting up. Rather than taking stock of the situation, slowing down and saying, "Let us look at this and respond accordingly", as other countries have done, the Executive have opened up the shutters to the virus. What disgraceful stuff. <BR /> <BR />As one scientist, Mr Einstein, said many years ago:”
“The Executive have presided over an omnishambles, including how quickly they lifted restrictions in the summer, danced along to the tune of the Tories throughout the pandemic and issued mixed messaging, confused messaging and downright baffling anti-scientific messaging. That is not the fault of the public; it is the fault of Executive Ministers in this Building. <BR /> <BR />The so-called circuit breaker that ended last week has been an unmitigated disaster. We have seen not only a failure in health terms but more job losses because of the uncertainty. The stop-start attitude towards restrictions and the inability properly to track, trace and control the virus and work towards creating a zero COVID situation has resulted in a disastrous health and economic scenario.”
“What shocking stuff. Some MLAs are fond of quoting Mr Scally — sometimes after the fact — but they seem incapable of following his advice when it matters. If there is a spike early next year, it is not good enough for the Executive or Ministers to blame that on people visiting their families over Christmas, not when they have permitted such actions. Ministers reopened workplaces and caused surges, presided over another failed circuit breaker and threw workers and businesses under the bus, and if they want someone to blame for the next surge, I suggest that they look in the mirror.”
“The Executive were warned about such a scenario by Gabriel Scally, who said that reopening in December would mean that:”
“The big parties are lining up to blame another surge on ordinary people for mixing over the Christmas period. You can already see the blame starting. However, that is not good enough, because the deadly context that we are entering is one that they have created. <BR /> <BR />Consider this, as the restrictions were eased last week — as I have said, we still have not discussed them — COVID cases per 100,000 of the population were at a significant high when compared to previous weeks. That indicates that the Executive's pre-Christmas circuit breaker was an abject failure by all accounts, as some of us predicted it would be. It further indicates that the Christmas period will likely be followed by another period of restrictions, as others have alluded to, and that is because of their precise failure to get the virus to manageable levels.”
“Broadly speaking, they had two major opportunities to combat the virus: initially in March, when it arrived on our shores, and later in the summer, after the first major lockdown. The Executive wasted those opportunities, and it is dangerous to follow the pursuits of the Tories, with their commitment to a for-profit model of society and the economy and their refusal to properly implement a zero-COVID strategy. <BR /> <BR />Now, Executive Ministers appear to be clamouring to cover their mistakes by blaming individuals for their actions, while ignoring the policy decisions and wider structural obstacles that have prevented us from beating the virus, such as the disastrous track-and-trace system and the shambolic mismanagement of restrictions.”
“18 today, but when will we have the time to discuss the current regulations that are in place and their effects? Presumably, it will be in the middle of next month, by which time, the regulations will have been in place for the guts of a month. Hopefully that is not the case, but, by all accounts, we are likely to be in a scenario — as many health experts are warning — where there will be an increase in cases and infections and the likely deaths that result from that. <BR /> <BR />One key theme throughout this crisis has been an attempt at victim blaming from a political establishment that is, itself, responsible for presiding over the spread of this virus. It is my contention that the Executive are primarily responsible for the surge of the virus.”
“I rise, once again, as I have over the last number of weeks, to speak to the absolute absurdity of the situation that we are in today. As of last week, we have seen new regulations, which have reopened large numbers of workplaces and sectors of society, come into effect, and that is something that others have mentioned. However, this Assembly still has not discussed those, never mind voted on them. That is very worrying, and it continues to set a dangerous precedent that effectively says that the Executive and their Ministers will act, and if you are not in the club, tough luck, as your voice will not be heard in any real or meaningful sense. What way is that to run a political institution? Where is the democracy and accountability here? Obviously, we are discussing amendments No. 17 and No.”
“Minister, given the number of anti-racist organisations, Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups and human rights organisations that have recently written to the Policing Board to express their outrage at how the police responded to them during the Black Lives Matter protests on 6 June, does the Minister agree with me that, if we are to have any semblance of racial equality, fines and threats of prosecution must be dropped and an apology made to all those who attended safe, socially-distanced protests in Belfast and Derry on 6 June?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he outline the measures that either his Department or the National Lottery has taken to ensure that those who do not need funding do not get it and that those who need it do? Given the scandals that we have seen in the past year, it is essential that we do not have skipping over bureaucracy, as it is called, but that proper measures are in place to ensure that organisations that need the funding get it. I would appreciate it if the Minister could outline what measures are in place to ensure that that happens.”
“Minister, while I welcome the news on the soft opt-out consultations, which is great news for wee Dáithí and so many others across the North, there have been increased concerns raised about future pathogens and zoonotic diseases, and maybe mutations, of COVID-19. Hopefully not, but it is a real possibility. The main reason for these is factory farming. Were there any discussions in the meeting about tackling the increasing problem of factory farming across the island?”
“They need to reject austerity, fight to tax the rich and do everything in their control to reverse wealth inequality, including lifting the cap on rates for high earners and wholeheartedly rejecting the privatisation of public services and the continued wasted expenditure that that creates. None of this seems to be in the report in front of us or in the mindset of the Committee for the Economy. I would welcome the Committee including that in future reports or in amendments to this one.”
“The Executive and the Committee — maybe more so the Executive — pass the buck, claiming that we cannot raise revenue and that our hands are tied. I consider myself a James Connolly socialist who wants to see a socialist Ireland. I do not doubt the problems of partition or the nefarious role of Westminster in our affairs. However, considering that the DUP and Sinn Féin spent the last decade arguing for tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporation tax to be lowered, which would have stripped hundreds of millions of pounds from our block grant, it is simply unacceptable to say that there is nothing we can do. <BR /> <BR />The Executive need to shift the focus of their economic policy. They need to urgently do the opposite of what they have done for the last 10 years.”
“Ministers can, to be blunt, waffle all day about consumer confidence. However, if the biggest employer on this island continues to deny decent pay to public-sector workers, people will simply not have the money in their pockets to spend. <BR /> <BR />A similar point has to be made about the claim or idea that workers need to increase their productivity. Reducing the argument to one, essentially, about being productive or unproductive implies that whether workers are good or bad is based solely on the amount of profit that they produce. It calls into question the viability of some jobs. It is exactly that kind of Tory-speak that has led many of us growing to despise it because of the impact that it has had, and will have, on our communities. <BR /> <BR />Finally, we have the question of revenue.”